Mattis: Trump's troop pullout will lead to 'disarray' in Syria and Isis resurgence

The former defense secretary James Mattis has said Donald Trump’s abrupt withdrawal of US troops from the Syria-Turkey border has increased the chances of a resurgence of Islamic State. But the retired general passed up an opportunity to directly criticise the president.
“If we don’t keep the pressure on,” Mattis told NBC’s Meet the Press, “then Isis will resurge. It’s absolutely a given that they will come back.”
After Mattis’s remarks were released, the Kurdish-led administration in northern Syria said 785 foreign individuals affiliated with Isis had escaped the camp where they were being held, following heavy Turkish shelling.
Trump announced the US withdrawal on Monday after a call with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The surprise announcement prompted widespread accusations of a betrayal of Kurds allied to the US in war-torn Syria. Turkey, which regards some Kurdish groups as terrorists, swiftly attacked. The president also said Erdoğan would visit the White House.

Do you believe we may be witnessing the rebirth of Isis in the region?

1 Like

We may be witnessing? How about “it’s already happening”

Yep. A relatively stable stalemate has turned into a disaster (ISIS reemergence, Kurds attacked and likely turning to Russia, hundreds of thousands of displaced people, US now completely withdrawing from Northern Syria) in less than a week.

Because of what? Maybe i messed it.
Further, is it true that the Pentagon was caught by surprise by this decision of Trump?

So 50 US troops were keeping ISIS in check? I mean I know our troops are good but that sounds a little hard to believe.

1 Like

If Turkey attacked with those 50 US troops in place, leading to US casualties, they would have likely faced retaliation from the US. Those troops were a deterrent. Our air superiority was a deterrent. No one has once said those 50 soldiers would have picked up arms and fought off a Turkish invasion.


So, the troops were human shields? Tell me, what is stopping us from retaliating without having to place our troops in harms way to be used as sacrifices?

What would he know

“By redeploying a few dozen American troops in Syria, the president acceded to a Turkish invasion of territory occupied by the Kurds.”

Trump is the re-founder of ISIS.


Exactly. We use troops as human shields/deterrents throughout the world and have so throughout history. It is nothing new. Preventing a conflict is favorable to retaliating once a conflict begins.


Not to mention nthe us will accept the lowest rate of refugee in it’s history this year…horrible 1 2 punches

I don’t think so, there is nothing stopping him from taking the same actions he would have taken had they been in place when the invasion happened, removing the troops was irrelevant. Feel free to criticize him for so far having not having responded to the invasion but spare me the criticism for not using them as human shields to motivate public opinion to support any move to respond because that is bogus. Troops should not ever be used as sacrificial goats. If you don’t want the Turks attacking the Kurds, simply tell them so and lay out the consequences, carry them out, and leave the troops out of it.

Trump is sending 1,800 troops to Saudi Arabia as a deterrent to Iran. If Iran were to mount a full scale attack, those 1,800 troops would be decimated. Should we instead have no troops in the Middle East and just retaliate once fighting begins?

EDIT: More troop deployment for deterrence examples.

500 troops to Lithuania as a deterrent to Russia (September, 2019)

1,000 troops to Poland as a deterrent to Russia (June, 2019)

Turkey wasn’t going to kill our troops in Syria to attack the Kurds.

Trump acceded to Turkey’s invasion by pulling our troops from the area. I don’t want the Turks attacking the Kurds, but Trump doesn’t seem to care, and it’s pissing off some Senate Republicans.

Like I said, if you want to criticize him for not stopping or retaliating against Turkey, knock yourself out. But there is no world in which using them as human shields is ethical policy. Whether there or anywhere else. There is no requirement we allow our troops to be slaughtered before we militarily act in defense of our national interests.

Yes, I am.

You’re ignoring what I’m writing. Turkey wasn’t going to kill our troops to attack the Kurds. Our troops there were not “human shields” anymore than they’re human shields anywhere. That’s just emotional hyperbole.

Andrew McCarthy today on Fox News: “By redeploying a few dozen American troops in Syria, the president acceded to a Turkish invasion of territory occupied by the Kurds.”

And I am calling that BS. If he wished to communicate to Turkey that there would be consequences to doing so, he didn’t need troops placed in harms way to do it. A simple phone call would suffice, followed up with carrying out the consequences he laid out.

You do know we are doing exactly that in the Middle East and Eastern Europe right now? I gave examples and links. We’ve been doing it for decades, if not the entirety of our existence as a nation.

And? I am pretty sure I pointed out it is always unethical. I don’t care how long it’s been going on or where else we are doing it. Troops are not speed bumps for the enemy to roll over so we can justify retaliatory measures we are perfectly capable of carrying out without using them as such.